deep_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output includes 'percentile rankings, risk signals, and behavioral patterns', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it requires any authentication, or if it has side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a use case. Every word is functional with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description could be more complete by elaborating on how the 'deep trust analysis' differs from sibling tools like get_agent_reputation or get_agent_trust. The current text is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'address' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'deep trust analysis' for an ACP agent address, distinguishing it superficially from siblings like get_agent_reputation and get_agent_trust by implying a more thorough analysis. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these similar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises using this tool for 'thorough due diligence', providing clear context for when it's appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.